Ambassador John Evans's Interview with Armenia TV

January 21, 2005

Anchor: The guest of today's "In Reality" program is the U.S. Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary to Armenia, John Evans. Good evening, Mr. Ambassador.

Answer: Good evening (in Armenian).

1. Question: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for accepting our invitation. And the first question is about the "notorious," as the Armenian media call it, statement by Elizabeth Jones regarding the authorities of Nagorno Karabakh. How would you comment on that?

Answer: The first thing to remember here is that the United States' policy has not changed. For quite a while now we have been pursuing the same policy. We have been trying to support Yerevan and Baku in finding a resolution to the Karabakh conflict. We have said that in the statement we released earlier this week. We are good friends of Armenia and I don't think that that needs any particular emphasis because everybody knows that. I don't need to mention the assistance figures for the last twelve years; they speak for themselves. We are also very encouraged by the progress that the two foreign ministers are making, most recently in their meeting in Prague, towards an eventual settlement of the Karabakh situation. So that's the first point I would want to make to your viewers. On the particular issue of what Ambassador Jones said let me make a few points. First of all, I have known Ambassador Jones for more than thirty years. She is a very fine professional diplomat and she is a very fine person. And when I first heard this report I immediately thought that something was not quite right. I've looked back very carefully at the text of the transcript of her remarks and what I have seen there very clearly is that uppermost in her mind was something quite other than Nagorno Karabakh. She was having a conversation with a number of journalists, a very informal, relaxed conversation. She was making the point that Russia and the United States need to work more, harder together to solve the four frozen conflicts and to emphasize her point she mentioned that, particularly in certain areas right against the border of Russia, there are criminal secessionist elements. Now, I know my geography and I do not believe she was talking about Karabakh, except in the context that we need to solve all four of these conflicts. So I, from the very beginning, have discounted the emphasis that has been put by some on her statements. I think I know which secessionist elements she was talking about and I don't think it was the Karabakh.

2. Question: I would like to continue your thought, Mr. Evans, and note here that two years ago Elizabeth Jones made a report on Nagorno Karabakh expressing a rather positive attitude towards Karabakh and the authorities of Karabakh. And the authorities in Karabakh today are the same as two years ago.

Answer: I think this is exactly the point. Ambassador Jones was having a very free-form conversation with journalists in Moscow, actually by digital video conference. And this was not a prepared statement of policy. I think the record is very clear. For example, the United States has been giving humanitarian aid to Karabakh for a number of years. I think we are one of only two countries which do that. And this year the budget calls for about $3 million in humanitarian aid. And there was the report two years ago, you are quite right. Those are the important statements of American policy. Any one of us, even with our family and friends and relatives, can say something that does not come out exactly the way we intended it. I think that is what has happened here. And I think far too much has been made of this statement by Ambassador Jones. I know what she thinks, I know that she was not intending in any way to change US policy and so I think the overreactions that we have heard here are most unfortunate. If someone really wants to hurt U.S.-Armenian relations, the way to do it is to persist in some of the outrageous statements that have been made about her professionalism and about her own person, statements that go back to the lexicon of old Soviet times. This is very dangerous. And so I do hope that people will put this incident in its context, realize that it is not so important. I noticed by the way, that so many of the stories about this have begun with the statement that "just as U.S.-Armenian relations are beginning to improve this happens." Well, the first part of the statement is correct, that relations have been good for a long time. They are improving in many different ways. So that's the important thing and we should let this go by and get on with the important work that we have to do.

3. Question: Of course it is important, but I would like to mention that the statement regarding Ambassador Jones has been circulating in the mass media for two days. It was even hard to find a specific attribution in the first days, in one case it was mentioned by Moscow News, in another by another news agency, or by the Azeri newspaper "Zerkalo," which made this public wave in Armenia. And there were accusations, even personal ones addressed to Ambassador Jones. Unfortunately, the statement by the Embassy was made a little bit late, which in fact did cool down the situation a little bit.

Answer: First of all, Ambassador Jones made the statement, and it wasn't a statement, this was a long conversation with journalists. One had to really dig hard to find that particular quotation. In fact when she first mentioned "criminal secessionists," one of the journalists in Moscow immediately thought "Oh, that must not be exactly right" and asked again. And then, if you look at the transcript you see that she was really talking about the areas on the borders of Russia. I won't name them, we all know which ones they are. But there is a very simple fact why we did not react more quickly. We had a state holiday on Monday and we were not at work. On Tuesday morning I learned about it and we immediately communicated with the Armenian government to make it clear that there was no change in our policy. Frankly, I did not consider this to be a terribly important event because these little imprecisions do occur. If we are going to change our policy, you would know about it and I would know about it beforehand. This clearly was not a policy change.

4. Question: Then, Mr. Ambassador, I would like to ask a question. So, can we say that Elizabeth Jones did not make a statement on Nagorno Karabakh regarding criminal elements there that should be removed?

Answer: I think if you look at the transcript you will see that she talks about these elements, two in Georgia and one in Moldova. The next sentence goes on to say "and there are some unresolved problems in Karabakh." So, she did say that. And I think it's true. One point I would like to make here is that people living and working in unrecognized statelets, small states that are unrecognized, do run into legal problems in conducting their business. Now I would not necessarily call that criminal and I am sure that Ambassador Jones would not. But there are some difficulties, which just underscores the urgency of our regulating the problem with Nagorno Karabakh so that the people there are not under the disadvantage of being unrecognized and unable to take part in world commerce and other activities of the international community in a normal way that fits within the structure of international law.

5. Question: You mentioned settlement of the Karabakh coflict. Do you think that U.S. policy on the territorial integrity of Azerbaijan will support peaceful negotiations on the conflict, since every negotiation requires a compromise on both sides? But if there is a US statement on territorial integrity, what compromise can the Azeri side make?

Answer: Yes, let me say a word about this, because the fact of the matter is that there are two fundamental principles of international law which are in collision in a situation like Nagorno Karabakh. There is the very old principle of territorial integrity. But there is also the principle of self-determination of nations. And these principles are in conflict and the challenge for the diplomats working on this is to find a just and lasting and ultimately legal way of overcoming this conflict. I think it can be done. It does require flexibility on both sides and a spirit of compromise. I think if you look at the positions of virtually all the states in the OSCE and for that matter in the world, you will find that they do talk about territorial integrity. This is what states want. But in a case like this, obviously the diplomats need to find a solution. So, it's a difficult challenge but I think it is doable.

6. Question: I would like to ask about section 907. The Unites States has waived that article again this year, which envisages assistance to Azerbaijan. And in fact Azerbaijan will again get assistance from the United States this year. And since our neighboring country, being a party to the conflict is also making militaristic statements, don't you think that the assistance will result in more militaristic statements, or even, God forbid, a war?

Answer: First of all, what has happened recently is simply the extension of a waiver that was sought originally after the attack on our country in 2001 by terrorists. We sought a waiver so that we could work with Azerbaijan, doing the things in the war against terrorism that we had to do in such places as Afghanistan. So that's the origin of the waiver of section 907. It's true that we have military cooperation with Azerbaijan, it's also true that we have growing military cooperation with Armenia. And this was very much on display earlier this week when the Armenian contingent took off for Kuwait and then Iraq. We very much welcome that assistance. The important thing is that no one in Washington or Moscow or in any number of other capitals has any intention of upsetting the existing military balance in this region. We all want stability. We certainly do not welcome any kinds of militaristic statements. We think that it would be most foolhardy for either side to resume hostilities. What we are trying to do is quite the opposite: to encourage and assist the two sides in finding a peaceful resolution that brings real stability, long-term stability, to the South Caucasus.

7. Question: Colin Powell will soon take on the status of retired diplomat. What do you think he will do in the future?

Answer. You know, Secretary Powell was very much loved by all of his employees and we wish him well. We do not believe he is going to simply retire. He has too much to offer. He has not only served our country as a diplomat, but of course he was for many years in uniform and he has also worked in education and other areas. So we are quite certain that he will be making a very important contribution either in the private sector, perhaps in the educational world, or perhaps on special assignment.

Anchor: Thank you, Mr. Ambassador, for participating in the program, for this interesting conversation.

Ambassador Evans: (In Armenian) It is a great honor.